Full Judgment
Wilson, J.
1. (Without calling on Mr. Bonnerjee to reply), held, that the application being one in a pending suit, the right to apply was a right which accrued from day to day, and therefore it was not barred by lapse of time.
Kedarnath Dutt Vs. Harra Chand Dutt
Kedarnath Dutt vs Harra Chand Dutt
For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial
Brief this judgment before chambers
Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Citation
- sooperkanoon.com/853464
- Court
- Kolkata
- Judge
- Wilson, J.
- Decided On
- Mar 09, 1882
- Subject
- Limitation
Case Summary
AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.
Limitation Act (XV of 1877), Schedule ii, Clauses 171, 171a, and 178 - Application to revive suit--Right to apply--Pending suit. -
- Key legal issue
- Limitation
Parties & Advocates
Appellant / Petitioner
Kedarnath Dutt
Respondent
Harra Chand Dutt
Legal References
- Reported In
- (1882)ILR8Cal420
Excerpt
limitation act (xv of 1877), schedule ii, clauses 171, 171a, and 178 - application to revive suit--right to apply--pending suit. - wilson, j.1. (without calling on mr. bonnerjee to reply), held, that the application being one in a pending suit, the right to apply was a right which accrued from day to day, and therefore it was not barred by lapse of time.